linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] powerpc: switch VDSO to C implementation.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <3027b6d2-47a9-a871-7c52-050a5f9c6ab7@c-s.fr>
Date:   Mon, 20 Jan 2020 14:56:00 +0000
From:   Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>
To:     Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc:     Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>, nathanl@...ux.ibm.com,
        arnd@...db.de, tglx@...utronix.de, vincenzo.frascino@....com,
        luto@...nel.org, x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 00/11] powerpc: switch VDSO to C implementation.

Hi

On 01/17/2020 08:58 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 05:58:24PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>> On a powerpc8xx, with current powerpc/32 ASM VDSO:
>>
>> gettimeofday:    vdso: 907 nsec/call
>> clock-getres-realtime:    vdso: 484 nsec/call
>> clock-gettime-realtime:    vdso: 899 nsec/call
>>
>> The first patch adds VDSO generic C support without any changes to common code.
>> Performance is as follows:
>>
>> gettimeofday:    vdso: 1211 nsec/call
>> clock-getres-realtime:    vdso: 722 nsec/call
>> clock-gettime-realtime:    vdso: 1216 nsec/call
>>
>> Then a few changes in the common code have allowed performance improvement. At
>> the end of the series we have:
>>
>> gettimeofday:    vdso: 974 nsec/call
>> clock-getres-realtime:    vdso: 545 nsec/call
>> clock-gettime-realtime:    vdso: 941 nsec/call
>>
>> The final result is rather close to pure ASM VDSO:
>> * 7% more on gettimeofday (9 cycles)
>> * 5% more on clock-gettime-realtime (6 cycles)
>> * 12% more on clock-getres-realtime (8 cycles)
> 
> Nice!  Much better.
> 
> It should be tested on more representative hardware, too, but this looks
> promising alright :-)
> 

mpc832x (e300c2 core) at 333 MHz:

Before:

gettimeofday:    vdso: 235 nsec/call
clock-getres-realtime-coarse:    vdso: 1668 nsec/call
clock-gettime-realtime-coarse:    vdso: 1338 nsec/call
clock-getres-realtime:    vdso: 135 nsec/call
clock-gettime-realtime:    vdso: 244 nsec/call
clock-getres-boottime:    vdso: 1232 nsec/call
clock-gettime-boottime:    vdso: 1935 nsec/call
clock-getres-tai:    vdso: 1257 nsec/call
clock-gettime-tai:    vdso: 1898 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic-raw:    vdso: 1229 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic-raw:    vdso: 1541 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic-coarse:    vdso: 1699 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic-coarse:    vdso: 1477 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic:    vdso: 135 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic:    vdso: 283 nsec/call

With the series:

gettimeofday:    vdso: 271 nsec/call
clock-getres-realtime-coarse:    vdso: 159 nsec/call
clock-gettime-realtime-coarse:    vdso: 184 nsec/call
clock-getres-realtime:    vdso: 163 nsec/call
clock-gettime-realtime:    vdso: 281 nsec/call
clock-getres-boottime:    vdso: 169 nsec/call
clock-gettime-boottime:    vdso: 274 nsec/call
clock-getres-tai:    vdso: 163 nsec/call
clock-gettime-tai:    vdso: 277 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic-raw:    vdso: 166 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic-raw:    vdso: 302 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic-coarse:    vdso: 159 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic-coarse:    vdso: 184 nsec/call
clock-getres-monotonic:    vdso: 166 nsec/call
clock-gettime-monotonic:    vdso: 274 nsec/call

Christophe